 |
| Poster image from the Ukrainian Taras Sevchenko association, pointing out the risks with using Surzhyk. В.Радчук, В.Білецький (Source) |
by Camille Dolce
Camille Dolce is a rising junior majoring in Political Science and Statistics and minoring in Russian at the University of Illinois. Camille’s future plans include pursuing graduate studies in Political Science. She wrote this blog post for 418 “Languages and Minorities in Europe” in Spring 2023.
Ukraine has come to have a complex history regarding language use in the country. Due to the long standing history of conflict with Russia, the debate over the use of Russian in the country has been a complicated one. This discourse extends to the use of Surzhyk, the term for mixed language composing of Ukrainian and Russian vocabulary and grammar. There are no strict defining rules for what the language looks like, and a lot of times it refers to dialects that differ on the individual level, with the only unifying trait being that it is a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian. Overall, about a quarter of Ukrainians speak in Surzhyk (Maheshwari, 2015). One can wonder how this rate would differ as a result of the language policies put into place under the Soviet Union. This article will examine the mixed language policy under Soviet Ukraine, and its effects on current use in Ukraine.
Language policy at the start of the formation of the USSR had hopes of including all ethnicities under the Soviet Union. Despite this, Ukrainians still felt pressure to assimilate and use Russian as their main language in day-to-day communication when it was mandated by the state to do so (Seals 2). The term Russification refers to the greater image of this process, where those living under the Soviet Union were encouraged to take upon a common Russian identity central to the USSR. This process had significant effects on enforcing the Russian language in Ukraine but failed to do so in correcting the behaviors of those using Surzhyk.
Despite Soviet language policy having motivations to mandate a widespread use of the Russian language in Ukraine, it was relatively unsuccessful in preventing the use of Surzhyk, at least in the long term. In an ironic sense, the argument can be made that these policies encouraged the proliferation of Surzhyk, as Ukrainians were forced to switch over to Russian, leaving them with limited time and capabilities to command all everyday communication in Russian. This is especially the case in smaller, poorer villages, where access to education, especially language education, is very limited. Despite the original use of Surzhyk being a result of this situation and conditions under the pre-Soviet era, this idea of the reason why Surzhyk has come into use is still the same (Bilaniuk 97).
Of course, after the fall of the Soviet Union, an emergence in support for the use of the Ukrainian language was seen in the nation as a smaller part of the larger image of support for Ukraine as a nation independent from Russia. The attitudes toward language use can be characterized by this sentiment. Support for language policies like those put in place under the Soviet Union was bare, and rather there was a larger effort to promote the Ukrainian language. What remained the same in both situations was the effort to prevent the use of Surzhyk.
Reasons to not support Surzhyk in Ukraine have come from both ethnic Ukrainians who view it as inclusive to Russia, and those who are pro-Russian, who view the mixing as a degradation of the Russian language. This issue has been politicized especially in current times with the ongoing war in Ukraine. Support for all communication to be spoken in Ukrainian is a pressing topic, yet its outcome in attitude towards Surzhyk style language use reflects the same attitudes that mid to late Soviet policies were trying to convey. In both cases, Surzhyk is seen as a disgrace to each group's respective language. This can be tied in with the idea that Surzhyk has been seen as a form of a dialect spoken by peasants and those with little education.
This belief can be seen strongly in Ukrainian nationalist groups, where using Surzhyk has been seen as an acceptance to participate in Russification and an overall openness to Russia (Bernsand 43). This idea has been the cause for discussions as to whether or not it is problematic, as those who speak it are not at the main fault for it being their main language. As previously aforementioned, the use of Surzhyk can be seen as both a result of Soviet russification policies that enforced the use of Russian strongly in Ukraine, and the socioeconomic standards that could have caused this language to develop under these policies. As a result, this situation could only further in a world in which the Ukrainian language was enforced the way Russian was under the USSR. Without adequate resources, the use of a mixed language would only continue.
As a result, the use of Surzhyk and the attitudes towards it have been affected by Soviet language policy by enforcing a non-native language onto speakers with inadequate resources to attain fluency and correctness, all while vilifying and viewing users as outcasts. The only difference has been the political reasons behind both, wherein one, the reasons were to promote the Russian identity, and the other, were and are to promote the Ukrainian identity. As a result, the sentiment and ideas Soviet policy had regarding Surzhyk have continued, only to be adopted by the other side for new reasons.
Ukraine has come to have a complex history regarding language use in the country. Due to the long standing history of conflict with Russia, the debate over the use of Russian in the country has been a complicated one. This discourse extends to the use of Surzhyk, the term for mixed language composing of Ukrainian and Russian vocabulary and grammar. There are no strict defining rules for what the language looks like, and a lot of times it refers to dialects that differ on the individual level, with the only unifying trait being that it is a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian. Overall, about a quarter of Ukrainians speak in Surzhyk (Maheshwari, 2015). One can wonder how this rate would differ as a result of the language policies put into place under the Soviet Union. This article will examine the mixed language policy under Soviet Ukraine, and its effects on current use in Ukraine.
Language policy at the start of the formation of the USSR had hopes of including all ethnicities under the Soviet Union. Despite this, Ukrainians still felt pressure to assimilate and use Russian as their main language in day-to-day communication when it was mandated by the state to do so (Seals 2). The term Russification refers to the greater image of this process, where those living under the Soviet Union were encouraged to take upon a common Russian identity central to the USSR. This process had significant effects on enforcing the Russian language in Ukraine but failed to do so in correcting the behaviors of those using Surzhyk.
Despite Soviet language policy having motivations to mandate a widespread use of the Russian language in Ukraine, it was relatively unsuccessful in preventing the use of Surzhyk, at least in the long term. In an ironic sense, the argument can be made that these policies encouraged the proliferation of Surzhyk, as Ukrainians were forced to switch over to Russian, leaving them with limited time and capabilities to command all everyday communication in Russian. This is especially the case in smaller, poorer villages, where access to education, especially language education, is very limited. Despite the original use of Surzhyk being a result of this situation and conditions under the pre-Soviet era, this idea of the reason why Surzhyk has come into use is still the same (Bilaniuk 97).
Of course, after the fall of the Soviet Union, an emergence in support for the use of the Ukrainian language was seen in the nation as a smaller part of the larger image of support for Ukraine as a nation independent from Russia. The attitudes toward language use can be characterized by this sentiment. Support for language policies like those put in place under the Soviet Union was bare, and rather there was a larger effort to promote the Ukrainian language. What remained the same in both situations was the effort to prevent the use of Surzhyk.
Reasons to not support Surzhyk in Ukraine have come from both ethnic Ukrainians who view it as inclusive to Russia, and those who are pro-Russian, who view the mixing as a degradation of the Russian language. This issue has been politicized especially in current times with the ongoing war in Ukraine. Support for all communication to be spoken in Ukrainian is a pressing topic, yet its outcome in attitude towards Surzhyk style language use reflects the same attitudes that mid to late Soviet policies were trying to convey. In both cases, Surzhyk is seen as a disgrace to each group's respective language. This can be tied in with the idea that Surzhyk has been seen as a form of a dialect spoken by peasants and those with little education.
This belief can be seen strongly in Ukrainian nationalist groups, where using Surzhyk has been seen as an acceptance to participate in Russification and an overall openness to Russia (Bernsand 43). This idea has been the cause for discussions as to whether or not it is problematic, as those who speak it are not at the main fault for it being their main language. As previously aforementioned, the use of Surzhyk can be seen as both a result of Soviet russification policies that enforced the use of Russian strongly in Ukraine, and the socioeconomic standards that could have caused this language to develop under these policies. As a result, this situation could only further in a world in which the Ukrainian language was enforced the way Russian was under the USSR. Without adequate resources, the use of a mixed language would only continue.
As a result, the use of Surzhyk and the attitudes towards it have been affected by Soviet language policy by enforcing a non-native language onto speakers with inadequate resources to attain fluency and correctness, all while vilifying and viewing users as outcasts. The only difference has been the political reasons behind both, wherein one, the reasons were to promote the Russian identity, and the other, were and are to promote the Ukrainian identity. As a result, the sentiment and ideas Soviet policy had regarding Surzhyk have continued, only to be adopted by the other side for new reasons.
Sources:
Bernsand, N. (2001). Surzhyk and national identity in Ukrainian nationalist language ideology. Berliner Osteuropa Info, 17(2001), 38-47.
Bilaniuk, Laada. “Speaking of ‘Surzhyk’: Ideologies and Mixed Languages.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 21, no. 1/2, 1997, pp. 93–117. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036643.
Maheshwari, V. (2015, November 14). A Ukrainian mongrel. POLITICO. Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://www.politico.eu/article/ukrainian-mongrel-surzhyk-language-russian/.
Seals, C. (2009). From Russification to Ukrainisation: A survey of language politics in Ukraine. The Undergraduate Journal on Slavic and East/Central European Studies, 1-10.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment
The moderators of the Linguis Europae blog reserve the right to delete any comments that they deem inappropriate. This may include, but is not limited to, spam, racist or disrespectful comments about other cultures/groups or directed at other commenters, and explicit language.